Bond 25 (2019)

FieldsMan wrote:

That Miami sequence is woeful.

Going back to what you mentioned earlier... I don't think the critically acclaimed films in the series are all exclusive to Fleming's material - as good as it is. GE, SF and TSWLM are hugely popular with critics and fans alike, and they don't exploit a Fleming novel. Out of those three, GE and SF resonate the atmosphere of a Fleming novel however, and I find that to be much more agreeable than CR06, where a Fleming story is lifted (mostly because it's bogged down by the personal journey).

I'm not a fan of GE, SF or TSWLM either. I don't think they capture the essence of a Fleming novel in any shape or form.

TSWLM obviously doesn't try to, but both GE or SF try to and fail miserably. Tanks crashing through the streets while straightening ties, or a grey skinhead looking Bond going back to his parents house in Scotland with M in tow don't remind me of Fleming whatsoever.

I just saw the making of TLD, and Michael Wilson says on camera that they were looking at the possibility of exploring Bond's childhood, but Cubby was dead against the idea and told them to focus more on existing Fleming material instead.

Cubby was 100% right. He probably wouldn't be too happy with what the producers and writers came up with in SF and particularly SP, having Bond and Blofeld being brothers.

jet set willy wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

That Miami sequence is woeful.

Going back to what you mentioned earlier... I don't think the critically acclaimed films in the series are all exclusive to Fleming's material - as good as it is. GE, SF and TSWLM are hugely popular with critics and fans alike, and they don't exploit a Fleming novel. Out of those three, GE and SF resonate the atmosphere of a Fleming novel however, and I find that to be much more agreeable than CR06, where a Fleming story is lifted (mostly because it's bogged down by the personal journey).

I'm not a fan of GE, SF or TSWLM either. I don't think they capture the essence of a Fleming novel in any shape or form.

TSWLM obviously doesn't try to, but both GE or SF try to and fail miserably. Tanks crashing through the streets while straightening ties, or a grey skinhead looking Bond going back to his parents house in Scotland with M in tow don't remind me of Fleming whatsoever.

I just saw the making of TLD, and Michael Wilson says on camera that they were looking at the possibility of exploring Bond's childhood, but Cubby was dead against the idea and told them to focus more on existing Fleming material instead.

Cubby was 100% right. He probably wouldn't be too happy with what the producers and writers came up with in SF and particularly SP, having Bond and Blofeld being brothers.

Tank chases and Skyfall lodge aside, Fleming is prevalent in both GE and SF. Villains with interesting backstories (the Lienz Cossack story for Trevelyan feels like it was ripped straight from a Fleming novel), commentary on Britain's place in the world, a sense of bizarre (personified in Onatopp and Silva), a bird with a wing down (Severine, and to an extent, a traumatised Natalya), etc. Bond's existential crisis in SF feels like the Bond from YOLT, and the more introspective Bond in GE feels like a Bond from the earlier Bond novels.

Cubby was 100% right, especially considering what happened in SP. But SF is truly excellent.

FieldsMan wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

That Miami sequence is woeful.

Going back to what you mentioned earlier... I don't think the critically acclaimed films in the series are all exclusive to Fleming's material - as good as it is. GE, SF and TSWLM are hugely popular with critics and fans alike, and they don't exploit a Fleming novel. Out of those three, GE and SF resonate the atmosphere of a Fleming novel however, and I find that to be much more agreeable than CR06, where a Fleming story is lifted (mostly because it's bogged down by the personal journey).

I'm not a fan of GE, SF or TSWLM either. I don't think they capture the essence of a Fleming novel in any shape or form.

TSWLM obviously doesn't try to, but both GE or SF try to and fail miserably. Tanks crashing through the streets while straightening ties, or a grey skinhead looking Bond going back to his parents house in Scotland with M in tow don't remind me of Fleming whatsoever.

I just saw the making of TLD, and Michael Wilson says on camera that they were looking at the possibility of exploring Bond's childhood, but Cubby was dead against the idea and told them to focus more on existing Fleming material instead.

Cubby was 100% right. He probably wouldn't be too happy with what the producers and writers came up with in SF and particularly SP, having Bond and Blofeld being brothers.

Tank chases and Skyfall lodge aside, Fleming is prevalent in both GE and SF. Villains with interesting backstories (the Lienz Cossack story for Trevelyan feels like it was ripped straight from a Fleming novel), commentary on Britain's place in the world, a sense of bizarre (personified in Onatopp and Silva), a bird with a wing down (Severine, and to an extent, a traumatised Natalya), etc. Bond's existential crisis in SF feels like the Bond from YOLT, and the more introspective Bond in GE feels like a Bond from the earlier Bond novels.

Cubby was 100% right, especially considering what happened in SP. But SF is truly excellent.

I liked SF when I first saw it, but Mendes style has started to gripe on me now after SP, and I'm not too happy the way Bond doesn't bleed or get physically damaged much, as much as what he did in CR (second half of the movie, not the first half).

Eh that doesn't bother me in the slightest. Even if it did, I wouldn't hate on the whole movie just because Bond doesn't bleed or physically damaged. There's so much more to the film than just that.

FieldsMan wrote:

Eh that doesn't bother me in the slightest. Even if it did, I wouldn't hate on the whole movie just because Bond doesn't bleed or physically damaged. There's so much more to the film than just that.

To me it is more important that Bond is human and not superhuman. I feel CR got this right in the second half of the movie (Bond in hospital, etc.) something I had not seen before on film, but was always evident in the books.

After that the human Bond lost his way, and wouldn't show this side again, apart from the beginning of SF.

I still think CR epitomises the superhuman Bond - even in the second half. Going into cardiac arrest then going back to the tables immediately and winning, drinking martinis, driving like nothing happened, etc.? The car flip would have probably killed him after having cardiac arrest, but then he goes on to endure torture (and Haggis' dialogue!). And thats only days after getting battered in Madagascar and Miami. The best part (note sarcasm) is when he rips out a nail from his shoulder.

FieldsMan wrote:

Fleming is prevalent in both GE... Villains with interesting backstories (the Lienz Cossack story for Trevelyan feels like it was ripped straight from a Fleming novel).

Just now realised the similarities between Trevelyan and novel MR's Drax. The latter was a facially-scarred Nazi seeking revenge on Britain and the other was the likewise scarred son of Nazi collaborators etc. etc. Weird that I've missed this.

On the 'battered Bond' thing ... I do remember a lot of 'he's never looked worse!' comment at the time regarding the closing scenes of LTK's tanker chase.

Little did we know then of the trials DAD, CR and Skyfall would put Our Man through ...

CJB wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Fleming is prevalent in both GE... Villains with interesting backstories (the Lienz Cossack story for Trevelyan feels like it was ripped straight from a Fleming novel).

Just now realised the similarities between Trevelyan and novel MR's Drax. The latter was a facially-scarred Nazi seeking revenge on Britain and the other was the likewise scarred son of Nazi collaborators etc. etc. Weird that I've missed this.

Indeed... Not to mention they work under an alias (Graf Hugo von der Drache, Janus) and scarred in an explosion during an operation for their country.

Perhaps the amnesia angle would have worked better for Col. Moon in DAD as opposed to a gene therapy?

BI wrote:

On the 'battered Bond' thing ... I do remember a lot of 'he's never looked worse!' comment at the time regarding the closing scenes of LTK's tanker chase.

Little did we know then of the trials DAD, CR and Skyfall would put Our Man through ...

Heh. One of my favourite shots from LTK is that shot of Dalton after he's killed Sanchez. Still, Bond not getting battered in GF won't mean I'll enjoy that film any less because he doesn't bleed, sweat, get injured, etc. I prefer the gentleman spy portrayal, I think.

FieldsMan wrote:

I still think CR epitomises the superhuman Bond - even in the second half. Going into cardiac arrest then going back to the tables immediately and winning, drinking martinis, driving like nothing happened, etc.? The car flip would have probably killed him after having cardiac arrest, but then he goes on to endure torture (and Haggis' dialogue!). And thats only days after getting battered in Madagascar and Miami. The best part (note sarcasm) is when he rips out a nail from his shoulder.

Somehow I didn't find those parts in CR implausible, mainly because DC is a decent enough actor to pull it off, and the direction didn't go too OTT for me. I thought they kept it quite grounded overall, and pretty much like the novel (although the car flip is far more spectacular on screen).

SF is not that plausible in terms of Bond falling from that train in the PTS. He would have been dead instantly from such a great fall. And the other issues I have with SF (other than how ghastly DC and un-Bond like looks throughout the film) are the many plot holes.

I also find the direction of Mendes lifeless, dull and pretentious.

jet set willy wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

I still think CR epitomises the superhuman Bond - even in the second half. Going into cardiac arrest then going back to the tables immediately and winning, drinking martinis, driving like nothing happened, etc.? The car flip would have probably killed him after having cardiac arrest, but then he goes on to endure torture (and Haggis' dialogue!). And thats only days after getting battered in Madagascar and Miami. The best part (note sarcasm) is when he rips out a nail from his shoulder.

Somehow I didn't find those parts in CR implausible, mainly because DC is a decent enough actor to pull it off, and the direction didn't go too OTT for me. I thought they kept it quite grounded overall, and pretty much like the novel (although the car flip is far more spectacular on screen).

SF is not that plausible in terms of Bond falling from that train in the PTS. He would have been dead instantly from such a great fall. And the other issues I have with SF (other than how ghastly DC and un-Bond like looks throughout the film) are the many plot holes.

I also find the direction of Mendes lifeless, dull and pretentious.

I always wonder what 'plotholes' people talk over when referring to SF... What are the plotholes, in your opinion? Perhaps you're including the fall off the bridge as one? Sure it stretches plausibility, but I can buy it.

Heh, I feel the opposite. I feel there's a vitality and humanity in Mendes direction. In CR, I feel Campbell's anaemic direction is riddled with pretentiousness. Look at the conversations between M and Mallory, or when Bond meets Severine. It feels grounded. Whereas, Bond talking to Vesper on the train (sure it doesn't help that the writing is trite) feels overacted and stilted. Campbell should have asked the actors to downplay what's written. There's no subtext because it's all on the page, so the drama feels contrived, and Campbell should have recognised that.

FieldsMan wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

I still think CR epitomises the superhuman Bond - even in the second half. Going into cardiac arrest then going back to the tables immediately and winning, drinking martinis, driving like nothing happened, etc.? The car flip would have probably killed him after having cardiac arrest, but then he goes on to endure torture (and Haggis' dialogue!). And thats only days after getting battered in Madagascar and Miami. The best part (note sarcasm) is when he rips out a nail from his shoulder.

Somehow I didn't find those parts in CR implausible, mainly because DC is a decent enough actor to pull it off, and the direction didn't go too OTT for me. I thought they kept it quite grounded overall, and pretty much like the novel (although the car flip is far more spectacular on screen).

SF is not that plausible in terms of Bond falling from that train in the PTS. He would have been dead instantly from such a great fall. And the other issues I have with SF (other than how ghastly DC and un-Bond like looks throughout the film) are the many plot holes.

I also find the direction of Mendes lifeless, dull and pretentious.

I always wonder what 'plotholes' people talk over when referring to SF... What are the plotholes, in your opinion? Perhaps you're including the fall off the bridge as one? Sure it stretches plausibility, but I can buy it.

Heh, I feel the opposite. I feel there's a vitality and humanity in Mendes direction. In CR, I feel Campbell's anaemic direction is riddled with pretentiousness. Look at the conversations between M and Mallory, or when Bond meets Severine. It feels grounded. Whereas, Bond talking to Vesper on the train (sure it doesn't help that the writing is trite) feels overacted and stilted. Campbell should have asked the actors to downplay what's written. There's no subtext because it's all on the page, so the drama feels contrived, and Campbell should have recognised that.

I'm not keen on the Vesper/Bond scene on the train either. But I find the dialogue when Bond meets Severine equally irritating. People just don't talk like that in real life. I also don't like the shave scene between Bond and Moneypenny either. Too much whispering and low voices - again being played too dramatic to be realistic.

M reading that poem in court is one of the most pretentious things I have ever seen in a Bond film.

Plot holes - Bond dragging M to Scotland, Silva trailing him with MI6 doing nothing about it, Silva knowing exactly when a tube train is coming along to fall through a hole. There are many more but it has been a while since I have watched the film, so can't remember off the top of my head.

The plot holes I can overlook though. The pretentious direction and dialogue I can't, and this is something I feel has plagued the Bond films ever since Babs took over.

Give me straight forward John Glen direction and a Richard Maibaum adapted Fleming story any day of the week.

jet set willy wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

I still think CR epitomises the superhuman Bond - even in the second half. Going into cardiac arrest then going back to the tables immediately and winning, drinking martinis, driving like nothing happened, etc.? The car flip would have probably killed him after having cardiac arrest, but then he goes on to endure torture (and Haggis' dialogue!). And thats only days after getting battered in Madagascar and Miami. The best part (note sarcasm) is when he rips out a nail from his shoulder.

Somehow I didn't find those parts in CR implausible, mainly because DC is a decent enough actor to pull it off, and the direction didn't go too OTT for me. I thought they kept it quite grounded overall, and pretty much like the novel (although the car flip is far more spectacular on screen).

SF is not that plausible in terms of Bond falling from that train in the PTS. He would have been dead instantly from such a great fall. And the other issues I have with SF (other than how ghastly DC and un-Bond like looks throughout the film) are the many plot holes.

I also find the direction of Mendes lifeless, dull and pretentious.

I always wonder what 'plotholes' people talk over when referring to SF... What are the plotholes, in your opinion? Perhaps you're including the fall off the bridge as one? Sure it stretches plausibility, but I can buy it.

Heh, I feel the opposite. I feel there's a vitality and humanity in Mendes direction. In CR, I feel Campbell's anaemic direction is riddled with pretentiousness. Look at the conversations between M and Mallory, or when Bond meets Severine. It feels grounded. Whereas, Bond talking to Vesper on the train (sure it doesn't help that the writing is trite) feels overacted and stilted. Campbell should have asked the actors to downplay what's written. There's no subtext because it's all on the page, so the drama feels contrived, and Campbell should have recognised that.

I'm not keen on the Vesper/Bond scene on the train either. But I find the dialogue when Bond meets Severine equally irritating. People just don't talk like that in real life. I also don't like the shave scene between Bond and Moneypenny either. Too much whispering and low voices - again being played too dramatic to be realistic.

M reading that poem in court is one of the most pretentious things I have ever seen in a Bond film.

Plot holes - Bond dragging M to Scotland, Silva trailing him with MI6 doing nothing about it, Silva knowing exactly when a tube train is coming along to fall through a hole. There are many more but it has been a while since I have watched the film, so can't remember off the top of my head.

The plot holes I can overlook though. The pretentious direction and dialogue I can't, and this is something I feel has plagued the Bond films ever since Babs took over.

Give me straight forward John Glen direction and a Richard Maibaum adapted Fleming story any day of the week.

We'll agree to disagree about how the drama plays out in SF. It's genuinely excellent, especially the Tennyson sequence. It's about as dramatic as Fleming wrote his dialogue, but it succeeds because it's downplayed. It's not that it's quiet, it's intimate and downplayed, and the actors aren't pushing/overacting. The dialogue masks what they've internalised, which creates tension in the scene, which is where SF succeeds.

Regarding the plotholes:

JSW wrote:

Plot holes - Bond dragging M to Scotland

It was so they could get the upper hand. Silva had it all planned out so Bond knew that he would have to take M somewhere where he can manipulate the outcome. When Silva eventually finds out that Bond's in Scotland, it would enough time for Bond to plan their defences. Not only does it make sense thematically but story-wise too.

JSW wrote:

Silva trailing him with MI6 doing nothing about it

Silva had hacked into MI6's systems, so any planning/communication between MI6 internally or externally would put Bond and M further into harm's way. Fully aware of that, MI6 create the trail for Silva to follow that would eventually lead him to Scotland for [see above].

JSW wrote:

Silva knowing exactly when a tube train is coming along to fall through a hole.

You don't think he would have heard a train passing? Silva was able to plan everything because he had hacked into their system. Even though MI6 went underground, he was able to learn sensitive information (their new location, Bond's evaluations, etc.) because he had access. This was how he was able to booby trap his laptop and cause the  doors to open. He knew the route from his cell to the tunnels and planned the explosion in order to distract emergency services so he could enter the public enquiry (since he knew that M was there from hacking her computer). He would have checked out how often trains pass through the tube. That wouldn't have required hacking - just a quick google search    - and knew that the train crash would have potentially killed Bond, but at the very least, add to the confusion and chaos which would aid his entry into the public enquiry.

FieldsMan wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

I still think CR epitomises the superhuman Bond - even in the second half. Going into cardiac arrest then going back to the tables immediately and winning, drinking martinis, driving like nothing happened, etc.? The car flip would have probably killed him after having cardiac arrest, but then he goes on to endure torture (and Haggis' dialogue!). And thats only days after getting battered in Madagascar and Miami. The best part (note sarcasm) is when he rips out a nail from his shoulder.

Somehow I didn't find those parts in CR implausible, mainly because DC is a decent enough actor to pull it off, and the direction didn't go too OTT for me. I thought they kept it quite grounded overall, and pretty much like the novel (although the car flip is far more spectacular on screen).

SF is not that plausible in terms of Bond falling from that train in the PTS. He would have been dead instantly from such a great fall. And the other issues I have with SF (other than how ghastly DC and un-Bond like looks throughout the film) are the many plot holes.

I also find the direction of Mendes lifeless, dull and pretentious.

I always wonder what 'plotholes' people talk over when referring to SF... What are the plotholes, in your opinion? Perhaps you're including the fall off the bridge as one? Sure it stretches plausibility, but I can buy it.

Heh, I feel the opposite. I feel there's a vitality and humanity in Mendes direction. In CR, I feel Campbell's anaemic direction is riddled with pretentiousness. Look at the conversations between M and Mallory, or when Bond meets Severine. It feels grounded. Whereas, Bond talking to Vesper on the train (sure it doesn't help that the writing is trite) feels overacted and stilted. Campbell should have asked the actors to downplay what's written. There's no subtext because it's all on the page, so the drama feels contrived, and Campbell should have recognised that.

I'm not keen on the Vesper/Bond scene on the train either. But I find the dialogue when Bond meets Severine equally irritating. People just don't talk like that in real life. I also don't like the shave scene between Bond and Moneypenny either. Too much whispering and low voices - again being played too dramatic to be realistic.

M reading that poem in court is one of the most pretentious things I have ever seen in a Bond film.

Plot holes - Bond dragging M to Scotland, Silva trailing him with MI6 doing nothing about it, Silva knowing exactly when a tube train is coming along to fall through a hole. There are many more but it has been a while since I have watched the film, so can't remember off the top of my head.

The plot holes I can overlook though. The pretentious direction and dialogue I can't, and this is something I feel has plagued the Bond films ever since Babs took over.

Give me straight forward John Glen direction and a Richard Maibaum adapted Fleming story any day of the week.

We'll agree to disagree about how the drama plays out in SF. It's genuinely excellent, especially the Tennyson sequence. It's about as dramatic as Fleming wrote his dialogue, but it succeeds because it's downplayed. It's not that it's quiet, it's intimate and downplayed, and the actors aren't pushing/overacting. The dialogue masks what they've internalised, which creates tension in the scene, which is where SF succeeds.

Regarding the plotholes:

JSW wrote:

Plot holes - Bond dragging M to Scotland

It was so they could get the upper hand. Silva had it all planned out so Bond knew that he would have to take M somewhere where he can manipulate the outcome. When Silva eventually finds out that Bond's in Scotland, it would enough time for Bond to plan their defences. Not only does it make sense thematically but story-wise too.

JSW wrote:

Silva trailing him with MI6 doing nothing about it

Silva had hacked into MI6's systems, so any planning/communication between MI6 internally or externally would put Bond and M further into harm's way. Fully aware of that, MI6 create the trail for Silva to follow that would eventually lead him to Scotland for [see above].

JSW wrote:

Silva knowing exactly when a tube train is coming along to fall through a hole.

You don't think he would have heard a train passing? Silva was able to plan everything because he had hacked into their system. Even though MI6 went underground, he was able to learn sensitive information (their new location, Bond's evaluations, etc.) because he had access. This was how he was able to booby trap his laptop and cause the  doors to open. He knew the route from his cell to the tunnels and planned the explosion in order to distract emergency services so he could enter the public enquiry (since he knew that M was there from hacking her computer). He would have checked out how often trains pass through the tube. That wouldn't have required hacking - just a quick google search    - and knew that the train crash would have potentially killed Bond, but at the very least, add to the confusion and chaos which would aid his entry into the public enquiry.

Well debated the plot holes, and the way the drama unfolds. I liked SF too when I first saw it, but unfortunately both SF and SP have weakened in my eyes on repeat viewings, and small things that I mentioned really start to grate on me now.

I think all Craig movies suffer from not being able to enjoy repeated viewings. I even struggle to watch CR now too.

The Bond films that I always seem to get drawn back to for repeated viewings, and never disappoint are GF, OHMSS and LTK.

Thanks. While I loved it upon its release, I've grown to appreciate SF more on repeated viewings, but you're right for the other three Craig Bond films. They occupy the bottom three spots in my ranking.

I'd love to see a current ranking JSW, if you feel like it:

https://bondandbeyond.forumotion.com/t33p425-rank-all-the-bond-films

jet set willy wrote:

I think all Craig movies suffer from not being able to enjoy repeated viewings. I even struggle to watch CR now too.

The Bond films that I always seem to get drawn back to for repeated viewings, and never disappoint are GF, OHMSS and LTK.

I think this absolutely - it always puzzles me how much secrecy revolves around the latest film story...when for the most part the traditional Bond film is one that improves the more you watch it and the better you know it. For me the ones that never disappoint also include DN, FRWL and TLD...but the rest minus the Craigs still tend to hold their own admirably.

My biggest gripe with SF remains the preposterous nature of Silva's planning, a level of omniscience or divine insight is needed to think it could ever play out and to my mind the best Bond moments by our hero or his nemesis are those done when reacting to adversity or when the plan goes awry..... Goldfinger having an American outfit ready and abruptly passing himself off as part of the attack force is a classic example, its simple yet both brilliant and brilliantly amusing.

CR is just a film I cannot get any enthusiasm to see again, its cold and sterile as an experience I neither feel enraged nor immersed in proceedings - the action all outstays its welcome the core story is buried to the extent of being an afterthought so none of the supposed character development actually has time to happen, instead its all retrospective expositions and catch up that feel cheap and unconvincing. I'm also 100% with you on the unnatural dialogue that pervades the Craig films in many cases it is very distracting.

FieldsMan wrote:

Thanks. While I loved it upon its release, I've grown to appreciate SF more on repeated viewings, but you're right for the other three Craig Bond films. They occupy the bottom three spots in my ranking.

I'd love to see a current ranking JSW, if you feel like it:

https://bondandbeyond.forumotion.com/t33p425-rank-all-the-bond-films

I've just put them in now. You'll probably be shocked that CR is high on my list, and GE is low.... ;)

lachesis wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

I think all Craig movies suffer from not being able to enjoy repeated viewings. I even struggle to watch CR now too.

The Bond films that I always seem to get drawn back to for repeated viewings, and never disappoint are GF, OHMSS and LTK.

I think this absolutely - it always puzzles me how much secrecy revolves around the latest film story...when for the most part the traditional Bond film is one that improves the more you watch it and the better you know it. For me the ones that never disappoint also include DN, FRWL and TLD...but the rest minus the Craigs still tend to hold their own admirably.

Good point. Bond films before CR have all held up very well, so much that I can find new appreciation in some of the lesser films (i.e. MR, DAD). The only one to do this is SF in Craig's era. CR and QOS have had the biggest drops, and SPECTRE I felt from the get go that it just wasn't a good film. It's interesting that in a traditional Bond film, we more or less know how it's going to play out, and it has the same impact on repeated viewings. I hope the reaction to SP doesn't discourage Babs and Michael from making a traditional Bond film in the future, and understand that the film's criticisms are for bro-Blo, a shoddy love story and the contrived development of the narrative. The return to a traditional formula was welcome.

Quote :

CR is just a film I cannot get any enthusiasm to see again, its cold and sterile as an experience I neither feel enraged nor immersed in proceedings - the action all outstays its welcome the core story is buried to the extent of being an afterthought so none of the supposed character development actually has time to happen, instead its all retrospective expositions and catch up that feel cheap and unconvincing.

Agreed.

Ryan Gosling and Tom Hiddlestone bore me as suggested Bond actors.
I still have to hear a better candidate than Idris Elba.

I didn't know Gosling was being mooted as one of the candidates. Terrible bloody idea.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

I didn't know Gosling was being mooted as one of the candidates. Terrible bloody idea.

Neither did I! That's a terrible suggestion.

Not a fan of Fassbender, Salome? Despite not physically being right for the part, Elba is too old now anyway. I'd rather Elba have his own spy series, or have another role alongside Bond.

FieldsMan wrote:

I'd rather Elba have his own spy series, or have another role alongside Bond.

There's no value in creating a spin-off 00-series with a female or black lead or gay lead. The point is to replace symbols of power and "privilege" that are represented by a heterosexual, white, ""Christian" male, which is why you see constant calls to replace Craig with Elba...or a female. Which is why you see Jack Bauer of "24" reconstituted as a black male in this new show....or why Michael B. Jordan played The Human Torch in the last FANTASTIC FOUR and is now being discussed to potentially carry on THE MATRIX film series. These decisions aren't even being made on a conscious level; it's just an ingrained part of the thinking of so many in Hollywood and on the left.

Yeah I get that but I feel it's tokenistic and offensive to replace traditionally white characters with black actors, further creating disparity. It becomes more about making a statement than becoming equal.

If Babs has any awareness of what's happening in the world she'd know that any such tokenistic action  will yield a larger degree of white scorn than black praise. The detached Hollywood elite still haven't realised how utterly fed up people are with their PC piety.

Elba has commented in interview on the 'baggage' he knows his taking on the role would bring ... he admitted that the fuss that there'd be around him being 'the first black Bond' rather than just the next actor to play the part was extremely off-putting.